Political Contestability and Contract Rigidity An Analysis of Procurement Contracts

Transcription

1 An Analysis of Procurement Contracts Jean Beuve U. Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Marian Moszoro Harvard University and Stéphane Saussier Sorbonne Business School Paris Dauphine March 21,

2 The EPPP research group in Paris Public-private partnerships «at large» Many sectors Data Applied economics based on contract theories Transaction costs Incomplete contract theory Relational contracts Incentive theory Many theories and many questions but few ingredients specific to public contracts 2

3 Perception of Public Contracts inefficient low quality delays expensive corruption, favoritism bureaucratic, red tape politics intricate, convoluted scrutiny, regulation controls, inspections protests, courts specific, rule-based... formal and rigid Are public contracts intrinsically different from private ones? 3

4 Public Contract Rigidity and Third Party Opportunism A fundamental difference between private and public contracts is that public contracts are in the public sphere, and thus, although politics is normally not necessary to understand private contracting, it becomes fundamental to understanding public contracting (Spiller 2008, An Institutional Theory of Public Contracts, NBER Working Paper 14152, p. 3) Third-party opportunism (TPO) prevents the use of relational contracts for public-private transactions Political contestability and public scrutiny are issues for public authorities public contracts are rigid 4

5 Scholarly Progression: A Research Agenda Theory Development Spiller 2008: An Institutional Theory of Public Contracts Formalization & Testable Hypotheses Moszoro & Spiller 2012: Third-Party Opportunism and the Nature of Public Contracts Moszoro & Spiller 2014: Political Contestability, Scrutiny, and Public Contracting Operationalization & Test of Hypotheses Moszoro, Spiller & Stolorz 2013: Rigidity of Public Contracts Aneja, Moszoro & Spiller 2014: Political Bonds: Political Hazards and the Choice of Municipal Financing Instruments 2015: Political Contestability and Contract Rigidity: An Analysis of Procurement Contracts 5

6 «TPO» in a Nutshell Mainstream contract theory deals with incentives and frictions of the (two) contracting parties There are third parties and some of them may be... Figure: Monster-in-law Marian Moszoro... not necessarily interested in the success of the relationship! (political opponents, excluded bidders, and interest groups) 6

7 Moszoro & Spiller (2012) - Results Opportunistic challenges is a key differential hazard of public transactions Rigidity in public contracting is a political risk adaptation by public agents Public agents limit the risk of third parties challenges through formalities and rules... externalizing the associated costs to the public at large Public Oversight Political Contestability = Contractual Rigidity 7

8 Contract rigidity What we call contract rigidity refers to rule-based (bureaucratic) implementation; i.e., the addition of contractual provisions and specifications that impose ex post stiff enforcement, intolerance to adaptation, and penalties for deviation Objective: to reduce the probability of being challenged Example is the city of Bordeaux water contract: 603 KPIs! Example is the City of Paris and the Velib with penalties that were never applied leading to the renegotiation of the contract Example is St Etienne car parks contract: The contract is challenged on the fact that it is either a gift, or poorly negotiated. 8

9 Research Question and Propositions Are public contracts more rigid than private contracts? Testable predictions: 1. Contracts subject to public scrutiny show more rigidity clauses than purely private (i.e. relational) contracts 2. In the sub-sample of public contracts, rigidity increases with political contestability 3. Public contracts are more frequently formally renegotiated 9

10 Data requirements The ideal experiment: Public and private contracts for the same standard object Sequence of contracts contracting parties write with each other with variation over time in contestability associated with one contracting party What we have: Data concerning car park contracts signed between 1985 and 2009 in France. One private operator Data on local elections (every 6 years) There is only one contractor and car parks arguably entail a standardized product and service A large part of the contractual heterogeneity comes from the procurers characteristics and time-varying political contestability. 10

11 Why Car Park Contracts? A relevant sector MATURE STANDARD PUBLIC vs PRIVATE 73% of car parks managed through PPPs Few asset specificity Few bilateral dependency Existence of public-public and public-private contracts COMPETITION DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRACTS POLITICAL CONTESTABILITY Growing competition (international and local operators) Concession contracts Political competition at the local level Credibility of outside option Operating contracts Provision of services contracts Public scrutiny SEE NEXT SLIDE 11

12 Are Car Park Contracts Politically Sensible? Political contestability and public scrutiny Car parks : the opposition requires a renegociation Copé, f***ing mayor, thief mayor 12

13 Summary: Data & Propositions: Private partners (24 Contractees) 47 contracts C1 C2 C3 P1: Contracts subject to public scrutiny are more rigid than purely private relational contracts P3: Public contracts more frequently rengotiated One private contractor P2: Public contracts rigidity rises in political contestability M1 M3 M2 396 contracts 793 amendments Signed between 1985 and 2008 Public authorities (152 Municipalities) 349 contracts 13

14 Empirical Strategy Controls Public vs private Contracts Political contestability within public contracts Frequency of amendments Pol. contestability 14

15 Dependent Variable: Contract Rigidity Apply algorithmic data reading and textual analysis to compare the complexity of public contracts subject to public scrutiny with relational private contracts 15

16 Keywords in Rigidity Categories: Dictionaries 16

17 Contract Rigidity at First Glance We used the normalized frequencies of word categories: And 17

18 Explanatory Variables Dummy Public versus Private (Public) Political Contestability HHI: Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of the first round of elections preceding the date of signature Residual_HHI: Concentration of all non-winning parties to measure the strength of the political opposition Win_Margin: Margin of victory between the winner and the runner-up party (+ Win_Margin²) Distance: Time between the date of signature and the date of future election (+ Distance²) 18

19 Control Variables E.g. Type of contracts (Concession, Operating, Provision_of_Services) Size of the city (number of Inhabitants) Political color of the mayor (Left_Wing vs Right_Wing) Renewed contract (dummy) Past_Contracts number of contracts signed between the two parties since 1985 Trend Past_experiences number of years the two contractors know each other Participation to the election (Election_participation) Number of corruption cases at the city level three years before the contract signature (Corruption) 19

20 Results 20

21 UAB March 2016 P1: Public vs Private Contract Rigidity 21

22 Election participation & corruption added P2: Political Contestability Effect (Public Contracts) ( ) 22

23 P2: Political Contestability Effect (Private Contracts) ( ) 23

24 P2: Political Contestability Effect (Whole Sample of Contracts) ( ) 24

25 P3: Frequency of Contract Renegotiations Public contract should be renegotiated more frequently through formal amendments than private ones (i.e. no relational contract) When faced with unforeseen or unexpected circumstances, private parties, as long as the relation remains worthwhile, adjust their required performance without the need for costly renegotiation or formal recontracting (Spiller 2008, page 1) 25

26 P3: Frequency of Contract Renegotiations Such high rates of contract renegotiation have raised serious questions about the viability of the concession model in developing countries. Guasch et al. [2008, p. 421] Vs. In a sense, [...] the frequency of contract renegotiation may provide concessions a relational quality [Spiller, 2008, p. 22]. 26

27 Discussion and Conclusion 27

28 Limitations Algorithmic textual analysis imperfect interpretation Algorithmic textual analysis is still in its early stage and is not yet close to human interpretation, especially when it comes to legal nuances! But, strong results we obtained even with imperfect methods, are indicative that correlations are not spurious. Better algorithms and dictionaries in the future will corroborate these findings Corruption as confounding factor Not much relevant to our setting ; Corruption is never significant Omitted variables: demand stochasticity and prices No data; year and geographic fixed effects 28

29 Thank you 29

30 Additional Material 30